Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5
environment, even 90 minutes with a skilled moderator, allow them to go at each other, steering the debate, that is one thing. but if it is complete free-for- all, i think the campaign would never risk it. >> in the first debate, i learned afterward, nixon was one of the smartest politicians ever to be vice president, and of course later, president. and he was the most gracious. that did not come across in the debate. why was that? no one seems to have asked that question. was he over-awed by his wealth, his tan? that is why what i want to know. why nixon did not bring that out as much as he did in the first one, in the next three. >> if i could, on the fact checking, one thing that i do that is helpful is to go to multiple fact checking organizations. go to several and get the consensus about what people have to say about the candidate's statements. >> we will go to a question from the studio. >> i have a question for professor mcilwain. i have been intrigued by your academic work, looking at how race influences the way candidates communicate with different audiences. for the first time,
environment and repealing obamacare. these are the burdens we have got to remove. >> and is now time for closing statements. congressman kantor -- cantor goes first. >> this is a robust discussion. it is a debate that has been tougher with what is wrong with politics today. that is a rash of personal attacks on my family. as we saw, at a competitive disregard for the truth. none of these negative tax to anything to trade a job or educate a child or do anything to bring down the deficit. the thames at character assassination -- the attempt at character assassination make it hard to compromise and sit down and get something done. i think you underestimate the decency of the voters of the seventh district. i have the honor honoring been for seven years. i have every confidence that the voters will reject your-came to your campaign. this is about what kind of country we want to be. there is one that i advocated that will produce more jobs. his view is that we need to raise taxes. the fact is we all know that the unprecedented prosperity of america did not come because the government just
harmed by racial preferences by being put in academic environments without warning. they are ill-prepared to compete with some of the most competitive students in the country. we also argue under principles previously established by the supreme court, the university texas' racial preference system at issue in this case is unconstitutional, although there are respectable arguments both ways, and i think the reason -- the reason i think fisher is a good bet to become the most important affirmative action case ever is simply the change in composition of the court since the last affirmative action case in 2003 and the two university of michigan cases. the court split 5-4, opening the door wide as long as quotas are avoided, as long as things are holistic, to large racial preferences in admissions, and has served as a model for universities around the country at every level, medical, law school, to expand their use of racial preferences, even though it is reported to lay down principles that would restrain the use of racial preferences. the reason we think they will not is that justic
place. they set up a set just like it will look like in denver. they are used the environment. they have somebody to play the moderator and ask questions. obama does not like sound bites. they force him to give answers. they do whatever they can to simulate the debate situation. >> you quote a former chief of staff to boast -- to vice- president alkyl and joe -- al gore and joe biden. let me read some of his points. -- can you elaborate? >> sure. he is not really specifically using this advice for romney or obama, although i have no doubt many of these tips are being passed on to president obama. it is interesting. that was my first short summary of what he has to say. he went into more debt -- depth about each one of those things. impressions of the debate are formed very early. in the first half hour. a lot of the reporters will be writing their stories in the first half hour. you need to come out strong. if there is something you want to say, you have to say it right away. you suggest candidates, when they come out to the sage, right down three points they want to make. when you are w
and events like this are incredibly valuable. not just because they help us all survive in an environment that is constantly shifting but because they give us a rare opportunity to reflect on where our profession is going. there is a whole lot to reflect upon. we are coming off what has been dubbed the summer of sin, where jonah lair was accused of plagiarism implied -- a plagiarism and the situation in canada. it is easy to lose ourselves in the individual cases of these single to analysts who are accused of fabrication or plagiarism. but we should not lose focus on what it tells about our profession and where it is going to read journalists are now expected to become -- to sell themselves to survive. i like to raise the question -- is branding oneself compatible with good journalism? >> if used to be there was a church-state wall between advertising and editorial. if you or your own advertiser, is it possible to maintain that separation? obviousquestion that's to raise -- is this any way to cover an election? it is a really good question. i am sure the profession -- will start -- sparke
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5